They had their "put up or shut up" didn't they

Well, the Democrats have been screaming for a period of time about how the U.S. should pull out of Iraq immediately. How we shouldn't even be there, the President lied about the intelligence, despite the fact that the Democrats both believed the same thing, and, saw the same intelligence. Regardless of what morons like John Kerry and Harry Reid say, they did, in fact, see the same intelligence. Or perhaps, it should be said, they had ACCESS to the same intelligence. If they were "too busy" to read it, that's their problem. That's not the problem of the President. Perhaps they should read their intelligence briefings or pay better attention.

It all started when Rep. Jack Murtha, a Democrat from Pennsylvania called for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. Actually, he wanted them withdrawn "at the earliest possible predictable date." So, in the eyes of the Democrats, this translates into "right now". So, it put the Democrats in the position of "putting up" or "shutting up". They wanted a vote on the issue, and, Democrats were granted their wish! In just a hair over 24 hours, their wish was granted, and, they had the opportunity to vote on the issue! It put them in a very awkward position! Do they expose themselves for the anti-war and anti-military people they are and appeal to the Far Left and certain segments of voters, or, would they support the war until the end and see it through which may anger the Far Left and that certain segment of voters? Well, if they voted for the resolution, one can surmise they'd easily look like cowards (which they most certainly are for cutting and running) and extremely short sighted (they won't even talk about the schools we've built, how Iraq has a better electrical and sewage system than they've had in the past, how they now have had multiple democratic elections, written a new Constitution and are experiencing freedom for the first time!). Rather the opposite. They claim that once we pull out, the terrorist bombings there will miraculously cease! Apparently, appeasing the terrorists will work, according to the Democrats. But, they won't even phrase it that way. Rather, they'll talk about the failures of America in Iraq and continue to attack the President and not give him credit for anything he does there that is good (see above mentioned items).

So, here the Democrats had an opportunity to voice their outrage about the Iraq war, at least in the House. And what happened pray tell? The measure was overwhelmingly defeated by a vote of 403 to 3. So, only 3 Democrats had the guts to scream their anti-military rhetoric in the form of their vote on this resolution. How pathetic! Well, they were faced with what they wanted, a vote on the issue, and what did they do? They voted against their own position! Of course now, the Democrats are screaming that the Republicans are playing politics with the issue. Why? Because they gave you exactly what you wanted? They gave you the vote that you asked for? That's playing politics? Well, considering Democrat's words before the vote (pull out now!) to after the vote (oh no! We don't think pulling out now is a good idea!). THAT'S politics! They were forced to "put up or shut up" and they blame Republicans for putting them in that position! Then don't ask to be put in that position morons! Careful what you wish for, you may just get it!

Now, in the Senate, we have Barack Obama is now calling for a troop reduction. He apparently is wanting a similar vote in the Senate, is he? Well, give it to them! Obviously, the genius Democrats in the Senate learned nothing from those in the House, so, let's give them their vote! Let's see if the Democrats are willing to put their vote on record concerning their position on an immediate pull out or reduction of troops. Let's get it in writing! But beware! There's a "two faced" area ahead on this! Hillary has already gone on record (right after the House vote) as saying pulling out now would be a "big mistake". Oh, so, is she trying to set herself up to look good for her 2008 Presidential run by being on both sides of the issue? Looks that way. If the Democrats in the Senate want a vote on immediate troop withdrawal or troop reduction in Iraq, let's give them their vote! It's time to "put up or shut up" Democrats. Let's get a vote on this issue! Write your senator now and tell them you want a vote, on record, on this issue! www.senate.gov

With their own words presented to them!

"Let's imagine the future," Clinton said seven years ago. "What if [Saddam] fails to comply [with U.N. sanctions], and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." -President Bill Clinton in his speech to the nation (that would be the U.S.) on 2/17/1998

The question is, do you want Saddam Hussein having chemical weapons, having biological weapons, possibly one day having a nuclear weapon? -Senator Evan Bayh, a member of the Intelligence Committee, explained why he supported removing Saddam Hussein from power.

There's no question Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. -Howard Dean, 2002.

The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as [Saddam Hussein] is in power. -Senator Carl Levin.

"We know [Iraq is] developing unmanned vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents...all U.S. intelligence experts agree they are seek nuclear weapons. There's little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them. ... In the wake of September 11th, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that those weapons might not be used against our troops, against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon. ..." -Senator John Kerry, 2002.

"Saddam is dangerous. He's got dangerous weapons." -Senator Ted Kennedy, 2002

"The Problem Is Not Nuclear Testing; It Is Nuclear Weapons. ... The Number Of Third World Countries With Nuclear Capabilities Seems To Grow Daily. Saddam Hussein's Near Success With Developing A Nuclear Weapon Should Be An Eye-Opener For Us All." -Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 8/3/92, p. S11188)

"If Iraq Were To Develop A Nuclear Weapon ... They Certainly Could Give It To A Suicide Bomber, Put It On A Container That Comes In A Ship Or A Plane, Or Assembled In Another Country And Comes Across Our Border In Mexico Or In Canada. And So That's A Real Danger, The Combination." -Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY): (CNN's "Late Edition," 9/8/02).

"One Of The Most Compelling Threats We In This Country Face Today Is The Proliferation Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Threat Assessments Regularly Warn Us Of The Possibility That North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Or Some Other Nation May Acquire Or Develop Nuclear Weapons." -Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 9/30/99, p. S11673).

"And They Will Be All The More Lethal If We Allow Them To Build Arsenals Of Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons And The Missiles To Deliver Them. We Simply Cannot Allow That To Happen. There Is No More Clear Example Of This Threat Than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His Regime Threatens The Safety Of His People, The Stability Of His Region And The Security Of All The Rest Of Us." -Former President Bill Clinton: (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, 2/17/98).

"[I]f You Allow Someone Like Saddam Hussein To Get Nuclear Weapons, Ballistic Missiles, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, How Many People Is He Going To Kill With Such Weapons? He's Already Demonstrated A Willingness To Use These Weapons ..." -Former Vice President Al Gore(CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98).

"Iraq Is A Long Way From [Here], But What Happens There Matters A Great Deal Here, For The Risk That The Leaders Of A Rogue State Will Use Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons Against Us Or Our Allies Is The Greatest Security Threat We Face, And It Is A Threat Against Which We Must And Will Stand Firm." -Former Secretary Of State Madeline Albright ("Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary Of Defense William Cohen And National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Participate In Town Hall Meeting," Federal News Service, 2/18/98).

"I Voted For The Iraqi Resolution. I Consider The Prospect Of A Nuclear-Armed Saddam Hussein Who Can Threaten Not Only His Neighbors, But The Stability Of The Region And The World, A Very Serious Threat To The United States." -Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)(Sen. Hillary Clinton, Press Conference, 1/22/03).

"According To The CIA's Report, All U.S. Intelligence Experts Agree That Iraq Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons. There Is Little Question That Saddam Hussein Wants To Develop Nuclear Weapons." -Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)(Sen. John F. Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, pp. S10172-10173).

"I Have No Doubt Saddam Hussein Is Lying. He Has Lied Countless Times Before. He Is Likely Hiding Weapons, Including Chemical And Biological Weapons. The U.N. Inspectors' Report Leaves Little Doubt Of That." -Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 1/30/03, p. S1782).

"The Iraqis Have Not Explained What Happened To Thousands Of Tons Of Chemical Weapons Material, And Other Biological Munitions They Had In Their Possession 5 Years Ago." -Sen Patrick Leahy(Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 1/30/03, p. S1782).

"There Have Been Discoveries Of Empty Chemical Weapons Shells And Documents They Had Not Disclosed. These Are Serious Discrepancies By A Regime That Is Among The World's Most Dangerous, Deceptive, And Brutal." -Sen. Patrick Leahy(Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 1/30/03, p. S1782).

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
-Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussseeings seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“If You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” -Senator John Kerry (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03).

“It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world.” -Sen. John Kerry (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171).

"Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction.”- Sen. John Kerry (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 12/16/98)






"In General, We Found That The Original Intelligence Material Was Correctly Reported In [Joint Intelligence Committee] Assessments. ... We Should Record In Particular That We Have Found No Evidence Of Deliberate Distortion Or Of Culpable Negligence. ... We Found No Evidence Of JIC Assessments And The Judgements Inside Them Being Pulled In Any Particular Direction To Meet The Policy Concerns Of Senior Of?cials On The JIC." ("Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction," Report Of A Committee Of Privy Counsellors, 7/14/04, p. 110)

Robb-Silberman Commission: "The Commission Found No Evidence Of Political Pressure To Influence The Intelligence Community's Pre-War Assessments Of Iraq's Weapons Programs." (Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05)

Bipartisan Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Report: "The Committee Did Not Find Any Evidence That Administration Officials Attempted To Coerce, Influence Or Pressure Analysts To Change Their Judgments Related To Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Capabilities." ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, Pg. 284-285)

Senate Report: "The Committee Found No Evidence That The Vice President's Visits To The Central Intelligence Agency Were Attempts To Pressure Analysts, Were Perceived As Intended To Pressure Analysts By Those Who Participated In The Briefings On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs, Or Did Pressure Analysts To Change Their Assessments." ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, Pg. 284-285)

Duelfer Report: Saddam Sought To "Recreate Iraq's WMD Capability" When Sanctions Were Lifted And "Aspired To Develop A Nuclear Capability." (Comprehensive Report Of The Special Advisor To The DCI On Iraq's WMD, 9/30/04, Pg. 1)

Former Clinton Director For Defense Policy And Arms Control, National Security Council Staff, Peter Feaver: "How Could Even The All-Powerful Neocons Have Manipulated The Intelligence Estimates Of The Clinton Administration, French Intelligence, British Intelligence, German Intelligence And All The Other 'Co-Conspirators' Who Concurred On The Fundamentals Of The Bush Assessment?" (Peter D. Feaver, Op-Ed, "The Fog Of WMD," The Washington Post, 1/28/04)

Former Secretary Of State Colin Powell: "The Best Intelligence Information Available To The President And All Of His Advisors, Available To The International Community, Available To The UN, Available To The United Kingdom And France And Germany And All Others, Left No Doubt In Our Mind That [Saddam] Had Stockpiles ..." (Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 1/27/05)

Why all the quotes you may ask? It's a column in itself you say. Indeed, it is. It is a big mistake the Democrats are making, and, the Liberally biased media is purposefully over looking, with the exception of Tim Russert in his 11/13/05 broadcast in which he confronted some of these Democrat quotes with Senator Ted Kennedy. Now, this really had Teddy Boy in a real conundrum. How would he answer if he intended to pull the party line, especially with some of the quotes he's got on here? Well, fear not! Teddy Boy dodged the issue and Tim Russert pressed only slightly. Bummer. But, for an instant, can you imagine the fear in Teddy Boy's mind?

President Bush is quite correct in stating that Democrats are trying to re-write history. Look over some of these quotes. Is there any doubt that these Democrats honestly believed that Saddam was a threat not just with WMD, but in and of himself? Further, there are many quotes I have placed here that should put to rest any allegations of purposeful manipulation of data. Especially the quote "The Committee Did Not Find Any Evidence That Administration Officials Attempted To Coerce, Influence Or Pressure Analysts To Change Their Judgments Related To Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Capabilities." ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, Pg. 284-285) which was a bi-partisan (that means Democrats and Republicans folks. I know "bi-partisan is a big word for Libs, but, sound it out ok?) sub-committee. So, if it's bi-partisan, then clearly the decision, and hence the quote, was derived of both Democrats and Republicans.

So, why now are we seeing this vast Left Wing attack on our president? Well, politics, as our President so clearly point out, is the reason. The Democrats know the media is largely on their side, so, they don't have to worry about being confronted with their own words to any great extent. And, if they are, they just dodge the issue. That's it. That's all they do. Either that, or they can just say, well, we thought back then.... Yeah, back then. But, some of these quotes are as recent as 2002. The war in Iraq started in 2003 if I'm not mistaken. So, if they felt differently when the war began, why then did they not seize the opportunity to molest the news media into publishing their views? Probably because they didn't change their views. I would think they would have jumped on the opportunity to get their new views out there. That only makes sense, right?

At every step, we must confront the Democrats with their own words. We must not allow them to say "well, it was the president who actually led us into war". No, that's not an excuse. You voted for the war, you made these statements, we have the quotes right here, let me read them to you. Just because the Democrats did not physically lead us into war does not mean they avoid responsibility as well. They don't get to do that. They don't get a pass. Congress voted, and, overwhelmingly approved. Period. No pass for you! You must be held just as accountable as the President if you insist on saying he lied and mis-led. If he is to be held accountable, then, so are you!

France-shining example for all of Europe....

Anyone who still believes France is not incompetent must be a Liberal. We are now, I believe as of this writing, in our 13th day of violent, terrorizing riots in France. As of this morning (U.S. Time), there have been about 5,000 cars torched, with 1,200 of them torched (and when I say torched, I mean destroyed completely) yesterday (12th Day of rioting).

Naturally, Libs have cited that this problem is France's fault. If France just paid more attention to these poor immigrant French Arabs, then this would not be a problem. France now, is even citing that they could have done a better job in integrating the rioting French Arabs into French Society. I'm not sure how that can be done, but, let us consider it as something that is possible. These immigrants have the potential to work, that is, they are capable. Granted, perhaps France has not done enough for them in terms of housing. However, how is it France's responsibility to ensure they have adequate housing? Do these immigrants not have any responsibility to alter their own destinies? After all, they can work, they can save money, they can look for more affordable housing or health care. They could certainly do things to positively affect their own destinies, could they not? Why the reliance on the French Government to do everything for them? Well, probably because France is a Socialist Government. Because it is a Socialist Government, there is more reliance upon them by the citizens to do things for them. I'm sure they also pay a hefty tax as well for this "benefit" if you can call being too lazy that your government has to do everything for you a "benefit".

The media say that there is a lot of discrimination against some of these immigrants, many of which are from Africa and many are also of the Islamic faith. However, the way to overcome this discrimination is not to start rioting. That will change nothing. They will gain sympathy from no one. By saying that they're just expressing their frustration through rioting, committing acts of violence and destroying personal and public property is to minimize what they're doing in this rioting. Even some Muslim leaders are trying to calm things down stating that what they're doing will not change anything, and, it is not the way to get their voices heard. Rather, if they have the ability to vote, contact your representative and go that route in terms of getting things changed. Hold public information meetings and educate the public on what is going on that effects your community, how it's effecting your community and what you'd like to see done. By being peaceful about it and trying to educate others in France about it, you're likely to gain some sympathy and it would likely make a good story for the local media. Henceforth, you'd get nation wide attention.

However, instead, the immigrants, many (but not all) of which are Muslims, and young at that, would rather torch private cars, school buses, hospitals and schools. One 61 year old man was even beaten into a coma while he was trying to extinguish a person's car that was on fire! How do these youths feel their voices are going to be positively heard that way? There is no excuse for what they are doing, period. There is no reasonable excuse for it.

But, how did this start? Well, apparently, three Muslim youths thought they were being chased by French Police, ran from them (if they weren't guilty of anything, then, why'd they run?), hid in a power sub station and two of the three were accidently electrocuted. Now, I'm not sure about France, but I can't imagine it'd be much different than here in the U.S. But, I would think a Power Sub Station would have a fence around it to keep people from getting in there. It may or may not have had barbed wire, who knows? The point is, they knowingly scaled a fence to get into this area that was clearly restricted. They knew it was a power station and that it could be dangerous. Despite knowing this, they made a CHOICE of their own free will to do it and scale the fence, and hide somewhere where they knew it would be dangerous. After the first two youths were electrocuted, the third was taken into custody and questioned. He admitted that they knew what they were doing, and that they were hiding somewhere where there was an element of risk involved, knowing they could be electrocuted. So, this riot really should have much to do with the present situation of these three youths. The kids did wrong, they made their own choices and there were consequences for those choices. Two of the three paid those consequences. It's too bad they died, but, they did everything they did knowing the possible consequences. So, why's the French Government getting the blame?

This whole thing should not have progressed past this incident involving the three youths. Instead, it was used as an excuse to address these other issues. That however, often happens. Something has to happen in order for awareness to be brought to something for those issues to be addressed. However, by burning cars, school buses, hospitals, schools, nursery schools and shooting at cops (not to mention throwing Molotov Cocktails at them!), your message is lost. You've gone from "we've got issues to address" to "we're gonna riot to express our frustration and you have to give us what we want or change things the way we want." Well, they're essentially using terrorist tactics in order to bring about change. When such violence is used to gain change, and, people are afraid for their safety, then, you're terrorizing them in order to get what you want or to get something changed. That's it, end of story. I don't care what society or country you live in, you don't have that right to do that!

There is no reason this should be going on for 13 days (presently). Someone in the French Government was recently quoted as saying "if we don't do something about these riots soon, it may get out of hand." Really? Well, I think it's a bit late for that genius! This should not have lasted 13 days! It shouldn't have lasted more than 2 days really. The second cars and school buses were getting torched, martial law should have been imposed. Give those who are inciting terror, reason to be afraid. The government should declare that if anyone is caught torching a car, school bus, hospital, school, shooting at a cop or causing harm to any private or public property or hurting someone else, they will be shot on sight and we will shoot to kill. It is difficult to comprehend the audacity that France has to be tolerant of their police officers getting shot at and to allow a 61 year old innocent male to become so injured as to be in a coma (I believe the man has since died as a result of his wounds as of this writing) as opposed to dealing with the situation. Now, France is imposing a curfew. If that's not Chirac with a "deer caught in the headlights" action, I don't know what is! You've done nothing to make the rioters feel like you're any threat to them. Why would they be afraid of a curfew? Oh, they'll face home detention, a fine, or jail time. Yep, I can see them shaking now. They hate their home, they have no money (according to them) and in jail they'd get free health care, better fed and perhaps a better place to stay than where they are currently. What's to fear?! At one point, the riots spread to 300 cities, and I understand that now that has decreased to under 250 cities. Well thank God! It's no longer 300 cities, but, it's still almost 250 cities!When it's that high, does it really matter how far down the number has come? Chirac does not have plans to move in the army. Well, thank God for that! France might really be done-in if the army goes in! Now, the rioting is spread to other countries as well. As of this writing, it is now occurring in Belgium, Denmark and Germany. To what extent, I do not know, but it apparently is occurring in a handful of locations in those countries.

France needs to really clamp down on these riots. Martial Law needs to be imposed. If they had dealt with it effectively from the get go, this would not be a problem after 13 days! If they're caught doing an act of violence or some terroristic activity, they should be shot on sight, period. Some claim that since the number of riots, cars being torched and cities that are having riots is going down, then, the riots must be abating. Not necessarily so! Maybe this is a lull in the storm! Everything has cycles to it. There are ups and downs to everything. Just because it's slowing down now, does not mean it will continue to do so in the future. We can all hope for that, but we should be breath a sigh of relief just yet!

It appears that France, being the incompetent country it is, is trying to be tolerant of this violent, terroristic activity. Once again, France wants to talk their way out of this! Rather than deal with the situation, let's talk it out. Well, if that's the case, I suggest they use the above picture as their new Crisis Alert System! Incidentally, they sell shirts, coffee mugs and all kinds of things with this logo on it at www.rightwingstuff.com . Based on the most recent activity on France's part, it seems they're at the "Surrender" stage, or the Orange level.

I wonder, if this happened in America, what would the Libs do? Would they act like France? Or, would gun owners be allowed to protect themselves, their families, their property, their schools and their hospitals? Certainly, there is a lot of poverty, and claimed discrimination, in the U.S. and, you don't see near the violence on any level that you're seeing in France. Perhaps, the immigrants rioting in France know the French Government better than we do in the U.S.!

Who defines mainstream?

I, like most Conservatives, am greatly pleased about Samuel Alito being nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. I was disappointed to see that, about an hour after President Bush's announcement, Senator Charles "Up-Chuck" Schummer made his statement painting Judge Alito as part of the Far Right Wing of the Republican Party. This, despite that he's got 15 years experience on the Third circuit Court of Appeals and he is generally regarded as fair and thoughtful in his decisions.

So, I guess my question is, why is it that Democrats are screaming about Far Right Wingers when Ruth Bader-Ginsburg was widely considered part of the Far Left Wing of the Democratic Party and nothing was said? I don't recall the Republicans screaming about her Far Left Wing Views, about how she was out of the mainstream of American beliefs and values. Ginsburg, as you may or may not know, was a lawyer for the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union, although I would classify them as the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union). At one point, she believed that a 12 year old girl should have access to getting an abortion without parental consent. How exactly is that considered part of the mainstream of American Values? Let's go one step further. Why is a 12 year old getting an abortion to begin with? And, why does Ginsburg (and apparently all Democrats since them seem to think that she's "in the mainstream") feel that a child should be able to get an abortion without a parental consent to get an abortion? In other words, why does Ginsburg (and Democrats) feel that it's ok to hide the fact that a 12 year old girl is getting an abortion from her parents? Why? Don't the parents have a right to know what their 12 year old is doing? If this kid were to go out and kill someone, why would the parents not be partially responsible for her actions since she's under 18 years old? Wouldn't the authorities come to the parents and say "well, what do you have to say for yourself?" So, why then is it ok for parents to be excluded from an incredibly important decision that will dramatically affect their 12 year old's life? Why do the parents not have a right to par-take in that decision? Most normal people, rather than saying "my daughter has a right to get an abortion at 12" should be saying "who am I going to charge for the rape or child molestation of my 12 year old daughter?" Or, does Ginsburg and Democrats feel that a 12 year old can make completely competent, intelligent and responsible decisions at 12 years old? I would say that even though a 12 year old may have some reasoning skills at 12, they ought naught to be having any kind of sex, nor should a parent be excluded from being notified that their 12 year old is having an abortion.

Most body piercing and tattoo businesses require parental consent to anyone under 18 years old. I think an abortion is much more serious of a procedure than getting a body piercing or tattoo. Who knows, maybe the parent will want their 12 year old to get an abortion anyway, but, they should at least be notified shouldn't they? If 12 year olds are expected to be competent to make their own decisions, then crap, why not just kick the 12 year old out of the house and let her live her own life? Apparently Democrats think they can make decisions for themselves right? Fine! Let's get rid of the child labor laws then. Don't kids have a right to decide if they want to work earlier in their lives? How about driving? How dare we, as adults, impose an age minimum on licensed drivers. If a kid feels they can drive at 12, let them! Why force kids to go to school either? Kids can certainly decide at 12 if school's for them right? Better yet, let's lower the age for drinking and alcohol too! Parent's shouldn't be told about any of this stuff right? Let the kid, at 12 (crap, why not younger?) go out, get a job, get a car, get an apartment, pick up drinking and smoking and let them be hookers/pimps if that's what they want to do and keep the parents in the dark? Let's lower the age for being a senator and president too. After all, kids at 12 are completely competent in their decision making skills!

Now, one of the biggest beefs that Liberals have with Judge Alito is that in a decision that involved abortion rights and a woman having to tell her husband that she's planning to have an abortion, Judge Alito dissented against the majority opinion (he agreed that a husband has a right to know that the wife was planning to abort their child). Why is this a problem? It doesn't bar the woman from getting an abortion. However, I believe the father of the child has a right to know. After all, through conception, the father helps to create the baby right? Or, do Democrats and Liberals think that women just spontaneously impregnate themselves? Yeah, that's probably it.

If I only had a dollar for every time I've heard a woman curse a man for getting her pregnant. So, there seems to be some acknowledgement that the man is at least partially responsible for the pregnancy. So, why should he be notified that his wife wants an abortion? After all, that's the husband's child too. Why doesn't he get a say in the matter? Granted, the woman carries the child, but, as I just discussed, if it weren't for the man, the woman wouldn't be pregnant to begin with. I'm not saying the man should over-ride the wishes of the woman, but, the husband should at least be notified and have the opportunity to have his beliefs in the matter heard. That is, at least, his basic right. What husband would not want to save their child? What husband would not want to try?

So, it is now clear. The Democrats and Liberals want to have a Litmus Test for any court nominee. The nominee must believe that a child, (of any age I suppose) must be allowed to get an abortion without her parents being notified or having their consent, and, the husband, even though he is at least partially responsible for his wife being pregnant, should have no rights whatsoever in his wishes for his baby to be saved from being aborted. If a court nominee cannot believe either of those two things, then screw the nominee. Democrats won't vote for them.

It does seem as though the Democrats and Liberals now lining up to bash Alito are putting ideology ahead of Constitutional and Judicial reasoning, fairness and the impartiality of judges. It doesn't seem as though Ginsburg was impartial about her abortion beliefs, but then again, she's considered mainstream by the Democrats and Liberals now bashing Alito.

So, what does it all come down to? Mainstream is whatever the Democrats decide it is at the moment. In their eyes, there is no Far Left Wing of the Democratic Party. Why? Because their beliefs will always be mainstream simply because they say their beliefs are mainstream. Ok, well, if it's mainstream, why not just pass a law requiring all new born babies to be aborted? After all, if it's mainstream according to Libs and Democrats, then all of America will get on board right?